quest_ii_from_the_west_to_the_wider_worldfandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:French Revolution and David/@comment-24416604-20140211171042
4 What are the real rights of man according to Burke, and how are they different than the French "Rights of Man?" On pages 217-218 in Burke's Reflections ofn the Revolution in France, Burke compares the "real" rights of man with the "pretended" rights of man that the people have falsely claimed to be their own. He says that men have a right to live in an "institution of beneficence," a right to "justice," a "right to the fruits of their industry; and to the means of making their industry fruitful." He goes on to say that "they have a right to the acqusitions of their parents; to the nourishment and improvement of their offspring; to instruction in life, and to consolation in death." All of these rights seem quite obvious to me, and I am most certain that Thomas Paine and others contemplating the rights of man during this time period would agree. Here is where Burke receives much criticism, though. He explains, "but as to the share of power, authority, and direction which each individual ought to have in the management of the state, that I must deny to be amongst the direct original rights of man in civil society; for I have in my contemplation the civil social man, and no other. It is a thing to to be settled by convention." Burke not only "denies" man's right to rule himself in this passage, but he also deams "convention" or the traditional means of rule a monarchy to be the appropriate way of governance. The next paragraph supports this way of thinking when he says, "that no man should be judge in his own cause." Basically, no man is wise, intelligent, filled with reason, etc. enough to be his own judge. Moreover, self-determinance is not a right of man. As Burke contemplates on page 220 why a government run by the people will not work, he argues, "The science of government being therefore so practical in itself... requires experience, and even more experience than any person can gain in his whole life... it is with infinite caution that any man ought to venture upon pulling down an edifice which has answered in any tolerable degree for ages the common purposes of society, or of building it up again, without having models and patterns of approved utility before his eyes." My question is: How can one obtain models if nothing new is ever tried or tested? Were monarchies not a novel concept at one point in history? Yet they were tried and found to be an acceptable means of rule for much of recorded history. Are men capable of determining their own system of governance? Do they have the right to change tradition? In regard to Thomas Paine, he refutes Burke's stance on the need to keep with tradition (and, hence, monarchy). Paine explains, "man is not the enemy of man, but through the medium of a false system of governance." According to him, if man (all men as individuals of a greater whole) were to rule together under one government by representation, war would subside and peace would arise. His arguement relies on the idea that if you take away the oppressor monarchy and return the innate rights back to men, all reason for war will dissappear. Of course, this is not so. We can see this clearly with the many on-going wars in our present world. Burke argues that "by having a right to everything they want everything." This is a valid point. Just give a toddler a piece of candy, and you will soon hear him/her ask for more. Thus, I ask one more question: Does the acquisition of rights further complicate our social order? Will obtaining more rights lead to more (or fewer) conflicts?